Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102699›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Exploring the experiences and preferences of South Asian patients' of primary care in England since COVID-19.

Nicola Small, Yumna Masood, Fiona Stevenson, Benjamin C Brown, Caroline Sanders, Brian McMillan, Helen Atherton, Tandrima Mazumdar, Nigat Ara, Humera Haqqani and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exploring the experiences and preferences of South Asian patients' of primary care in England since COVID-19.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nicola SmallDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7879-7967
Yumna MasoodDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0903-6945
Fiona StevensonResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2139-2309
Benjamin C BrownDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9975-4782
Caroline SandersDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0539-928X
Brian McMillanDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0683-3877
Helen AthertonUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7072-1925
Tandrima Mazumdar
Nigat Ara
Humera Haqqani
Sudeh Cheraghi-SohiDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2863-0683

Funding

School of Primary Care Research 2021-2026-519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRemote (digital and/or telephone) access and consultation models are being driven by national policy with the goal being that the National Health Service operate on a remote-first (digital-first) basis by 2029. Previous research has suggested that remote methods of access to care and consulting may act to widen health inequalities for certain patients and/or groups such as those from ethnic minorities. South Asian (SA) patients comprise the largest ethnic minority group in England. Understanding the experiences and needs of this group is critical to ensuring that general practice can deliver equitable, quality health care.

methodsQualitative study. 37 participants (from Indian, Pakistani and/or Bangladeshi background) were recruited to take part in either in-person preferred language focus groups or remote semistructured interviews in the English language. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes in the qualitative data.

findingsThree major interlinked themes were identified: (1) reduced access, (2) reduced patient choice and (3) quality and safety concerns. The findings highlight access issues split by (i) general issues with appointment access via any remote means and (ii) specific issues related to language barriers creating additional barriers to access and care. Some patients valued the convenience of remote access but also raised concerns regarding appointment availability and reduced patient choice. Face-to-face consultations were preferable but less available. The findings underscore how participants perceived remote care to be of lesser quality and less safe. Concerns were greatest for those with limited English proficiency (LEP), with the removal of non-verbal aspects of communication and 'hands-on' care leading to perceptions of reduced psycho-social safety.

conclusionSA patients' experiences of remote-led primary care access and care delivery were negative with only a minority viewing it positively and for certain limited scenarios. Face-to-face models of care remain the preferred mode of consultation, particularly for those with LEP. Hybrid models of access offer patients the greatest choice, and are likely to meet the varying needs of the South-Asian patient population going forwards. The remote first approach to primary care may be achievable as a service ideal, but its limitations need to be recognised and accounted for to ensure that primary care can be an equitable service, both now and in the future. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in all phases of research in the study. This included co-working in partnership throughout the study including, reviewing patient-facing documents, recruiting participants, data facilitation, translation work, interpretation of the data and co-authors on this manuscript. The key to the success of our study was collaborative teamwork, which involved experienced members of the public with SA cultural knowledge working together with and integral to the research team for all components.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityPatient PreferencePrimary Health CareAdultAgedAsian PeopleBangladeshCommunication BarriersEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIndiaInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedCOVID‐19 accessgeneral practicequalitativeSouth Asiantelephonetriage

Identifiers

PMID39102699
PMCPMC10844758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.